/biz/ - Business & Finance

imagine being so gay that you end up being yourself, OP.

>>56576775
I want to lick her asshole pretty bad

>>56576775
Original Idea was that every piece of Business logic is running on 1 single chain.
This doesnt work and its kinda like in factorio when you build a spagetti belt and dump all items on it. it will clog and it doesnt scale.
L2s is like adding more Spagetti Belts that depend on the main spagetti belt.

Avalanche Subnets is like building a Bus and you can add as many lanes as you want.

>>56576775
All L1 scaling either sacrifice decentralization (big node requirements) or security (e.g. side chains with fewer validators than main chain). The blockchain trilemma hasn't been solved and any project claiming so is a grift.

>>56576952
the argument is that security is modular and there don't need to be unbreakable billion dollar guarantees for every gay little dapp. the big boys can have their expensive security while all the periphery apps can have their multisigs and councils and whatever the fuck

>>56576952
This is only true to Nakamoto & Classical consensus, Avalanche has its own unparalleled consensus mechanism.
Lurk moar.

>>56576775
Imagine bagholding shit that can't outperform anything in top 100
For 2 years strait
Imagine being so poor and still shilling here while everyone can see you hold shitcoin that onyl goes down

>>56577173
madam can you explain to me how subnet validators can't spoof transactions? like if I made a subnet where I control all 3 nodes what's stopping me from just declaring whatever I want

>>56577208
Kek

>>56577225
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXrrqtFlGow&ab_channel=GeorgeKonstantopoulos
no more spoonfeed tho

>>56577380
I get Snowman, the question I have is about subnets and what happens if every validator in a subnet set is dishonest. Naturally one would assume that someone running the subnet would choose a set of nodes that they trust. This trust assumption then passes to the users, who must assume that the subnet owner has chosen trustworthy nodes. If that somehow isn't the case then please correct me

>>56577421
All nodes (whether they're dedicated to a single subnet or not) are connected as they still have to validate the main chain (Avalanche), because of this, a rogue node would then affect the entire chain, this is why it isn't possible for you to spoof transactions even if you own all the nodes in your own subnet as the consensus itself won't allow it (since you're still validating the main chain, picrel might help understand this).

>>56577581
>would then affect the entire chain
But the isn't a subnet a separate chain? Why can't the rogue node validate main chain correctly but act maliciously on the subnet?

>>56577675
read slower
come on, you can do it, buddy

>>56578432
Insults are the lowest tier of arguments. It's fine if you can't answer technical questions like this.

>>56578486
from my reading of the discord, subnet validator sets are permissioned for this reason, to prevent malicious takeover. the idea seems to be that subnet owners will start by controlling or hiring their validators directly, and over time transition to a larger permissionless set

L2s are OK as secondary scaling option. IMO Ethereum shoot itself in the foot by abandoning plans to scale on-chain

>>56578486
I didn't mean to offend you anon, seems like you're not quite familiar with this site
>>56578527
>by abandoning plans to scale on-chain
Ethereum's problem relies on its consensus mechanism, I'm not quite sure if you can ever modify that without forking the whole chain.
I think it's more accurate to say Ethereum *can't* scale on-chain

>>56578511
Okay got it, thanks. Are all existing subnets permissioned or have some taken the step to open validating for everyone? How much higher are the node requirements vs. only validating the main chain?

>>56578582
>I didn't mean to offend you anon
No offense taken. Your post just didn't have any arguments.

>>56578585
that I don't know, you'd have to check out some of the subnets currently running: https://core.app/ecosystem.. on one hand subnets are marketed as beneficial to validators, in that validators must be wooed by the subnet owner with tokens and the like so they will bother to validate the chain, while on the other hand it's clear the security of the subnet is compromised if a majority of validators are malicious. the nice thing is that subnets are highly customizable, so you the subnet designer could try to create a system that encourages a larger validator set without potentially nuking your security. perhaps they are hoping someone will figure this out.

>>56578593
My argument is that I've already replied to you.
A node can't be rogue for its subnet and at the same time compliant for the main chain, the consensus won't allow it as the rest of the nodes (who are also validating the main chain) will just flag it as malicious. There's just no way to set it or make it work.

>>56578669
>as the rest of the nodes (who are also validating the main chain) will just flag it as malicious
How do they know it's malicious if they don't validate the subnet or have its state in memory?

>>56578691
How do you set up a malicious node (that again, is validating the main chain) without alerting the others?

>>56576775
>"double spending" via L2s
fixed

Kaspa is THE crypto solution.
Layer1 - 1 block per second. 10 blocks per second coming.

Stop buying anything else.
It is that simple.

I have another subnet question, are they actually cheaper than C-Chain? you set your own gas token and fee, so in theory you could make a super cheap subnet. But there's a point where low tx cost could burden your subnet throughput due to transaction spam, right? So what are the best practices here

>>56579092
>so in theory you could make a super cheap subnet
you would be willing to run a Subnet for FREE?
like you want to give away uptime and resources for FREE and you want NOTHING in return? how generous of you.

or you know you could implement any customized fee market you want into your Subnet, like harvest a reasonable fee using any token you want, prevent spam by scaling fees accordingly and then redistribute the profits to your elastic Validator Set.
the high APY for validating your Subnet will attract more Validator Gigachads to validate your Blockchain for you, so it scales as usage goes up. decentralization goes up too that way.
basically everyone profits and people would be more willing to trust the elastic subnet compared to your permissioned Subnet with 2 validators that could shit the bed any day.